Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish a direct link between securitizations and accrual-based earnings management by investigating whether financial statements in the periods of securitizations are more likely to be restated at a later time. In addition, this study examines whether the association between securitization and accounting restatements is more pronounced in the pre-financial crisis period and for banks with less independent or industry-specialized auditors. Design/methodology/approach This study covers a sample of bank holding companies with restatement information between 2001 and 2012. Using the incidence of material accounting restatements as a proxy for accrual earnings management, this study investigates whether securitizations are likely used as a tool for accrual earnings management. A logistic model is applied with standard errors clustered at the firm-year level. Various robustness tests are conducted to rule out the possibilities that the results are driven by unintentional reporting errors or endogeneity of the securitization decisions. Findings The empirical results reveal a positive and significant association between banks’ securitization activities and the likelihood of having accounting restatements. Moreover, this positive association is more pronounced in the pre-financial crisis period and for banks with less independent or industry-specialized auditors. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that managers take advantage of discretions on accounting rules for securitizations to manage earnings. This evidence provides multi-dimension implications for standard setters and practitioners, as well as investors. Originality/value This is one of the very first papers to document evidence that accrual earnings management is involved in securitization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".